Quote from Caledonian - "am l missing something, first flight, l thought these were old frames refitted not totally new???"

This is a popular misconception. There is very little left of the doner aircraft by the time they become an MRA4. In fact it is about 95% new build. Inside it is very 21st century with a totally different operating concept.

Personally I think the MRA4 looks the business. The MK2 always looked menacing when compared to the P3 and the new aeroplane looks even more so. Some of the lumps and bumps you see in the photos are for flight test and won't appear on the production aircraft.

Mr Eff,

Are you planning on opening a kebab shop using one of the leftover aircraft ??? It would look good at the main gate of ISK, and I am sure that it would be a good profitable business.

Merry Christmas one and all.

YG

> Very good - the stupid secure protection ensures that the images won't load properly....

This is a user setting problem affecting those with the latest Microsoft SP upgrades.
Open the above link again and read the text on accessing the larger photos.
MS cocks it up again :{

IanC - mum's the word :E

rivetjoint - hear what you say and totally agree, but read the bottom section of the above mentioned 'notes' page for the reason.

Merry Christmas everyone.

What great photos, and I agree that it really does look the business, very mean and nasty :ok:

Although i can't download them - a couple of questions:

are those vertical strakes just inboard of the Loral pods?

Surprised to see the Arar/Arax antenna housing on the fin...still filled with concrete?

thanks

rich

Rich - The pod on the fin is now home to the SHF Satcom antenna.

So Rich, who exactly do you work for?

?
 

Quote.... Good photo's....it looks mean and nasty...????? Its a NIMROD for gawds sake.... how can an MPA look mean and nasty?

Well, I still can't open the larger photos thanks to the daft encryption used. The 'having difficulties' link just goes to some site which appears to be a bitch fight between "I hate Bill Gatres" nerds and others...

Chaps, if the vast majority (apart from geeks) use Windows - and probably WinXPSP2 - doesn't it make sense to make your pictures compatible if you want them to be seen?

Caledonian

No - to keep the fuselage helped with certification. The existing tubes are only about 1600 hours old and have CAA authority which carry about 32 certificates. A brand new ac requires 50+ and takes longer to get into service. Certification for wings, engines, and ancilliaries require much less; so, NDT the tubes, strap on the bits, pass the test and get flying. Also keeps the costs down. This is what was done and is proven.

The Arax/Arar canoe was never filled with concrete - it was, and still is, retained for aerodynamic purposes. It was intended to house an earlier SatNav, but that's now fitted to the upper rear fuselage because present day aerials are not as clumsy and don't need fairings.

On an engineering point - it's very expensive to modify an ac due to equipement rendundancy, particularly when it affects the external airframe - best heave out the old kit and use the existing space for future developments.

Love many, Trust a few, no cement in my canoe:ok:

What are the small vertical fins on the wingtips, just inboard of the pods?

Just curious :ok:

CC

Mr Eff

Quote
"There is very little left of the doner aircraft by the time they become an MRA4. In fact it is about 95% new build ".

That is except the complete Pressure shell (which must surely add up to more than 5%) I have the pictures, and flying controls (more than a couple of a percent), PA01 (ZJ516) had about 14,000 hrs on it in its previous life as XV247 I reckon thats an awful lot of Pressurisations which must surely still have an impact on the remaining metal.

Thinks !!!! I wonder if they have fixed "47,s lousy plain flaps, we never did get them fixed properly when she was at ISK, infact looking at the pictures its not got them anymore.

PA01 had a previous life.................it will time.... count !


BT

Richlear

Long time no see - ex of 201 days in the late 80's!!

Can't be arsed reading the thread to see if anyone else has said this - MRA4 vs P3/P7 etc - right choice? given the development timescale either way - 50/50. Course the P7 would have been the safer option as the C130-J avionics are proven right?............er.........er..............oh no they're not. Even now after 10 years from first flight the J is only just coming up t scratch. Don't knock the MRA4. A lot has been achieved in a very short time. Of course there will be problems but the other option was no less risky.

PIC 1

PIC 2

Bluetail - the flying controls are all new as are the wings and flaps.

What an unbelievably ugly brute the Nimrod Y2K is!

Whatever happened to "If it looks right, it'll fly right!"....??

Nimrod
 

What happened to the AEW airframes when the project was scrapped. I thought they were low hours/best knick of the fleet.

They were all dismanteld or scrapped at various locations including RAF Abingdon.

Beagle; Your are correct sir - in fact two thirds of the Nimrod AEW3 s flew into Abingdon which then sat there for ages, slwly being robbed of spares before most being given the cutters torch!
One i believe re-flew out to Kinloss just before the 89 Airday....

Beagle.........was nearly right

The AEW3 leet were all broken up at Abingdon except XV263 which went to Finningley for baby Flight Engineers to play with, apparently they were even allowed to drive it around occasionally, I certainly know that it was ground run quite alot.

Also XZ282 had the distinction of carrying out the last ever AEW3 flight when it was delivered to Kinloss in 1989,

This aircraft was used as a ground trials aircraft for the remainder of its existance, a none ground runner she was towed all over the place, and eventually ended up outside the MU and was slowly reduced to produce.

When Kinloss finally got bored with her in the mid 90,s Williamson's the local scrappy bought the hulk for a couple of grand and commenced the job, that was until they got to the wings.

They still had fuel in.............

Imagine the site, local scrappy with very big husqvarnar.... chop chop.. spark spark.. whats that funny smell.............err .........fuel.

Sh&t....and off they ran and came back when they got brave. '82 ended her days in Elgin.

£2.000 for £75 Million pound aircraft... (Project binned when it hit £750 Million) good deal that, the scrappy probably got at least £2000 for each of its jet pipes

I did a bit of research on the AEW fleet for an article some years later, I found that of the fleet of 10 built at least 2 had less than 100 Flying Hours, with the lowest about 85

What a waste...............a classic goal posts job

The only bits of AEW3 remaining I know of are as follows


Carlisle Airport Cockpit of XV259
Warton Nose of XV263
RAF Stafford Fuselage of XZ287

BT



BT

The fuselage of XV263 (minus nose and tail section) is located at Woodford, it is/will be used for stress testing purposes.

Bit of info, A guy in Guildford has got the nose section of the prototype, last I herd was that he was looking for bits to bring it up to spec, which was a shame as I remember seeing skips loaded with bits he could have used at Hurn, all I believe heading to the scrap man.

Although the main fuselage was kept a lot of work still has to be done to bring it up to spec.

Bluetail

Read my previous threads

That lovely man at Warton in those early days knew what Nimrod was about to do and built the beast well over spec. Where it should be 8mm it was 10 - where it was 12 it was 14 etc. etc.

XV247 is a rogue ac; it's numbers add up to 13 (unlucky for some)

On the 13Sep83, No 2 engine sucked in and killed a Cpl engine fitter during a ground run on Bay 13 at ISK.

Later, during a major servicing - 13Nov84 - a Sgt Airframe Fitter was paralysed for life when his head was trapped in the air- brakes.

I'm not superstsious like, but I never took a Life-Jacket whose numbers add up to 13.

Love many, Trust a few, Always paddle your own canoe:ok:

B 15

I was always told it was 229 for those accidents. Spookily adding up to 13 also, and ghost sightings have been seen since. Aren't rumours great!!

B 15

Not wanting to change the thread, but you are correct about both 29 and 47, the latter was a nasty beast indeed.

There were many a liney in my time at ISK who refused to go onto 29 at night alone. A particular good buddy of mine (rigger) swore blind he saw someone/something in the galley of 29 one night and after that refused point blank to go onto it alone in the dark.

I remember one girly engine fitter doing a refuel actually talking to something which vanished, again on 29 she was completly mortified for the rest of the night.

There are 4 nimrods that add up to 13

29, 38, 47, & 83

And dont mention 666

XV256 was somewhat unluckier. :(

Ray

Ah.... I Forgot about 56,

In the early 90,s ISK started painting a nice badge by the Port back door with a Sqn crews name above and Crew Chief,s name below, I was told mine would be put on 29, which I promptly declined, much because of the aircrafts spooky reputation.

I finally got my name on '30, a much better jet, 'cos being a bit of a Harry Potter, 30 was the first Nimrod delivered to the RAF for sqn service. (OCU St Mawgan 1969), which appealed to me much more.

BT

NFTC had a very lucky escape with 29 on Rum Punch some years ago

Started with a flying control restriction - did the changeover drills and headed for Nassau. By the time they reached the end of the runway the whole system locked up.

A sequence valve in the cracking strut servodyne thingy in the Aeileron bay had been fitted upside down at birth - amazingly it functioned properly all those years

They even traced the fitter from AVRO at Warton, long since retired, who recalled exactly how he assembled it - upside down!

Great bit of detective work by the BOI and engineers

My crew flew it back from Florida - I remember it well - it was one of the quietest transits I have ever done

That's the only claim to fame I know of regarding 29 - never heard of the ghosty things - strange?

Buoy 15

I was there too.......

it got named "The Bahama Mama"

Wasn,t there a couple of Green Endorsements dished out, didn,t the Eng get one.

If I recall it was a complete sod of a job to fix it, took a crew from ISK 2 weeks in Nassau to sort it out.

BT

Back to the MRA4..........and sorry if I,ve missed it

Why haven't the beasts been painted properly yet. are they keeping the weight down, which I can,t believe

I thought the grey paint job was approved already

They look poxy in primer

BT

Very odd, cos I seem to remember them being built by Hawker Siddeley at Woodford! ;)

Unless those many nights out at Bredbury Hall got rid of more brain cells than I thought at the time! :ooh:

229 First started mis-behaving in Nordholtz having her now famous uncontrolled flying control movements. Something spooky about a beast that wants to dive into the sea, it was not new to us as we did have Skippy as a Co-pilot, dont mention the windsurfers!!:sad:

Now then Mr eff you back at work yet and got your sorry ass into the air, it makes your ears go pop! and of course :yuk:
Heard rumours (DQI 2) a decision could be soon it is a rumour network after all.

Charlie sends

Does Bredbury Hall still exist???? Happy memories of 2 weeks there on the YG course....

Charlie,

that would be Skippy "I've lost it, I've lost it" when flying at 200' losing the sound from his headset, unfortunately for the rest of the brown trousered crew his mic was still working.

Or "All I have to do is push forward and I will take you all with me" - did not stay at ISK very long after that.

It does, as I drove up to it the other week as I was in the area. Nostalgia and all that..... Probably the first time I have seen the place in daylight too! :oh:

But as to whether or not it is still the same Bredbury Hall that we know and love..... :confused:

You can't talk about Skippy like that........................

His granny will come looking for you!

:ok:

Have Shotgun and a couple of loads of Buckshot for skippy and his granny, best fetch me a couple of reloads:E

Charlie sends

Charlie - G'day little dude, hows the Colonies ?;)

So they let you in with the shotguns hey ?

Get in touch mate - Skweeky sends............

It is fair to say the avionics and various other systems on the MRA4 are still in the development stage therefore we have to expect to suffer some teething problems. But having the upmost confidence in the BAE engineers, i'm sure thiese will be overcome.

When the MOD decided to use the old airframes from the Mk2 aircraft, what wasn't taken into account was the fact that these airframes were practically hand built compared with todays manufacturing processes (i.e. use of close tolerance jigs, fixture and CAD packages). This resulted in a Mk2 fleet with structural variations of up to a 2" between the aircraft.

However, the new built assemblies such as wings, tailplane finlets etc, for the MRA4 were designed and built using close tolerance CAD packages, jigs and fixtures. and so all new built assemblies were identical.

Major structural problems therefore arose when trying to mate the new and old assemblies. The same effect you would get fitting the same dia bolt into varying hole sizes.

Perhaps the plan is to prove the MRA4 sytems on board PA01 to PA03, then look at various other platforms???

It is fair to say the avionics and various other systems on the MRA4 are still in the development stage therefore we have to expect to suffer some teething problems. But having the upmost confidence in the BAE engineers, i\'m sure thiese will be overcome.

When the MOD decided to use the old airframes from the Mk2 aircraft, what wasn\'t taken into account was the fact that these airframes were practically hand built compared with todays manufacturing processes (i.e. use of close tolerance jigs, fixture and CAD packages). This resulted in a Mk2 fleet with structural variations of up to a 2" between the aircraft.

However, the new built assemblies such as wings, tailplane finlets etc, for the MRA4 were designed and built using close tolerance CAD packages, jigs and fixtures. and so all new built assemblies were identical.

Major structural problems therefore arose when trying to mate the new and old assemblies. The same effect you would get fitting the same dia bolt into varying hole sizes.

Perhaps the plan is to prove the MRA4 sytems on board PA01 to PA03, then look at various other platforms???

aerodesigner

You keep repeating yourself mate

Hope the CADAM team don't do the same

By the way, only the outboard leading edges and the wing boxes were hand built.

Hello, is that Bredbury Hall, ah yes, about my liver transplant.
Thank you Mr Sykes, see you tonight on the chanderlier!

Happy days!